Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
> Am 09.12.18 um 17:54 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
>>
>> *From: *Ralph Palmer <address@hidden>
>> *Date: *Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:41 AM
>> *To: *<address@hidden>
>> *Cc: *<address@hidden>, lilypond-user Mailinglist <address@hidden>
>> *Subject: *Re: lilypond.org Productions page
>>
>> I'm currently working on a collection of fiddle tunes
>> transcribed/transposed for viola. It includes copyrighted music, but
>> I have explicit permission from the copyright holders to post the
>> collection publicly on the internet.
>>
>> I would prefer that we not limit the productions to public domain
>> and open content licensed material. In my opinion, as long as the
>> music is available to see on the web (preferably in pdf form), we
>> should let it be listed on our productions page.
>>
>
> I'm afraid this isn't a matter of personal opinion, because "we're a
> GNU project" etc. etc.
The question is just what conditions we are talking about here regarding
further distribution. The GFDL is not a public license either. And
with regard to the FSF, Stallman is actually not all that much
interested in matters outside of software and its documentation.
So it's likely more a matter of what we want to see/promote. A fuzzy "I
can publish on the Internet" without clear idea about what people may
actually do when tripping on this "on the Internet" is actually not
unlikely to lead us into trouble. "I can publish" and "the LilyPond
project may publish" are different things. If it's not clear what
people may actually do with it, a subset (marked or even available
separately) with more clearcut conditions may actually be more useful to
some subset of users.
--
David Kastrup
Thanks for the clarification, David.
Ralph